Connaire Moorcroft - Stonehenge In The Context Of Modern British Architecture

STONEHENGE

IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN BRITISH ARCHITECTURE

CONNAIRE MOORCROFT

Fig 1. A Druids' celebration of Midsummer, watched by spectators at Stonehenge, Wiltshire, England (21st June 1985).

STONEHENGE; IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN BRITISH ARCHITECTURE

Student name: Connaire Moorcroft

Student number: 190371968

Elective group name: Group 12 - Architecture, Mysticism and Myth: Delphic Imaginaries

Dissertation tutor: Nathaniel Coleman

Title of your dissertation: Stonehenge; in the Context of Modern British Architecture

Word Count: 8,746

Fig 2. The first “realistic” depiction of Stonehenge, a 1575 watercolour by Lucas De Heere.

PART

ABSTRACT

Modern mainstream theories state that Stonehenge was built by pre-historic Britons as a either a place of healing or a temple of death.

This dissertation aims to unpack the influence Stonehenge, as an iconic ancient monument, has had on British Architecture both in physical design and cultural memory. It will also address how the mythology surrounding Stonehenge has influenced or been affected by the prevailing thoughts of each epoch from the 17th to the 20th century.

Part 1 introduces the history of Stonehenge, the 2 modern theories and then has a brief overview at past mythology. Part 2 will delve in deeper and explore the cultural climate, mythical associations and the cultural and design impact of Stonehenge on artist endeavours, with the ultimate focus on architecture.

This information has been chosen, after extensive research, as being representative of the main theories and influences; They have been catalogued in chronological order to bring us up to modern Architecture and Stonehenge’s relevance today.

THE MONUMENTS BACKGROUND

At the start of the 3rd millennium BC, work began on the site we now call Stonehenge. The first were the Windmill people of Southern England, who began by digging deep furrows and building up big mounds of soil to form the outer encircling bank. They raised the first circle of bluestone boulders, quarried and transported them from the Preseli Hills in south-west Wales. It’s believed they used it as a collective burial site, with perhaps around 150 people thought to have been laid to rest. 1 After this, in 2500BC, the Beaker people arrived from continental Europe and gradually assimilated, indicating it was a peaceful affair. They eventually replaced 90% of the British gene pool2 and continued to use Stonehenge as a receptacle for the dead. Around this time, 80 gigantic sarsen stones were bought to the site from Marlborough Downs, 26 miles north. The final group to work on it were the Wessex people in 1500BC, they were a very advanced culture and most likely moved the stones to their final positions.3

“A Timeline of Stonehenge: From Hunter-Gatherers to Solstice Alignment and Beyond.” [n.d.]. The British Museum <https://www.britishmuseum.org/ exhibitions/world-stonehenge/stonehenge-timeline> [accessed 17 January 2023]

2 Pearson, Mike Parker. 2019. The Beaker People the Beaker People: Isotopes, Mobility and Diet in Prehistoric Britain, ed. by Mike Parker Pearson, Alison Sheridan, Mandy Jay, Andrew Chamberlain, Mike Richards, and others (Oxford, England: Oxbow Books)

3 Burl, Aubery. 2007. A Brief History of Stonehenge: One of the Most Famous Ancient Monuments in Britain (New York, NY: Avalon Publishing Group)

Fig 3. Stonehenge phases illustrated.

PART 1

Fig 4. A mid-14th-century manuscript illustration showing the wizard Merlin building Stonehenge.

THE PREHISTORIC LOURDES

The first theory comes from the archaeologists Tim Darvill and Geoffrey Wainwright, who believe Stonehenge was primarily built as a place of healing and attracted many pre-historic travellers to come as a form of pilgrimage.4

Their theory stems from three main sources; The first is a passage from the ‘historian’ Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain (1136), explaining how Stonehenge had been built by the magician Merlin who transported the stones from an Irish healing circle used by giants.5 The second comes from the Roman historian Diodorus Siculus’ 1st century BC Library of History where he describes an island of Hyperboreans in the far north of Europe and a temple of ‘spherical form’ associated with the vernal equinox and the god Apollo6. The final comes from Pembrokeshire folklore about healing bluestones.

However, Darrill and Wainwright’s theories can be invalidated upon further scrutiny. For instance, oral traditions generally don’t survive more than 500 years, meaning this, at 4000 years, would be the most impressive case in the world.8 In addition, any number of circular Iron Age wooden structures may be implicated by Diodorus, and if his statement about the moon appearing closer to the earth was an attempt to describe a particular astronomical phenomenon, then it couldn’t be in southern Britain; Rather, it would more likely be 500 miles north at Calanais Neolithic stone circle.9 Furthermore, the fact that Apollo is not only the god of healing but also the sun, light, truth, poetry and prophesy doesn’t substantiate a specific healing concern anymore than a general one.10 Finally, evidence of individuals coming to Stonehenge to cure themselves isn’t convincing; Darvill points out 2 examples of trepanation near the monument however, only 10 examples of pre-historic trepanation exist in Britain and they’re mostly scattered widely around. In fact, out of more than 50 skeletons buried around the Stonehenge complex, only 3 have evidence for healing. These 3 were also buried 700-1000 years after the bluestones came to Stonehenge, much after the 500 year oral history expiration date.11

4 Jones, Dan. 2008. “New Light on Stonehenge,” Smithsonian Magazine <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/new-light-on-stonehenge-11706891/> [accessed 17 January 2023]

5 Monmouth, Geoffrey, Geoffrey, and Monmouth Geoffrey. 1958. The History of the Kings of Britain, ed. by Charles W. Dunn, trans. by Sebastian Evans (Plume Books)

6 Diodorus, Siculus. 1989. Library of History: V. 2, trans. by C. H. Oldfather (London, England: LOEB)

7 Darvill, Timothy, and Geoffrey Wainwright. “Stonehenge Excavations 2008.” The Antiquaries Journal, vol. 89, 2009, pp. 1–19 (London, England: The Society of Antiquaries of London)

8 Ong, Walter J. 2002. Orality and Literacy, 2nd edn (London, England: Routledge)

9 Burl

10 Kerenyi, Carl. 1974. The Gods of the Greeks, trans. by N. Cameron (London, England: Thames & Hudson)

11 Pearson, Mike Parker. 2012. Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery (London, England: Simon & Schuster)

Fig 5. Finds from the grave of the Amesbury Archer, a pre-historic German metal worker buried near Stonehenge, who has a deep lesion in one leg bone. Darvill and Wainwright use him as evidance of their theory.

MONUMENTS OF LIFE & DEATH UNITED BY THE RIVER AVON

It could be that Stonehenge was multifunctional, as Tim and Geoff concede, and was used for ancestor worship amongst other things.12 This latter idea was pursued by the archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson, who led the most thorough excavation ever conducted between 2003 and 2009. Published in his book Stonehenge: The Greatest Stone Age Mystery (2012), he advances the main theory that Stonehenge functions as a monument of death connected by the river Avon to the nearby Woodhenge and Durrington Walls, monuments of life.13

Woodhenge was built around 2500BC and consisted of six concentric rings of timber posts forming an oval monument. Its close neighbour is Durrington Walls, a Neolithic settlement with a large village.14 A wealth of objects were discovered at Woodhenge and Durrington Walls compared to Stonehenge, where human bones were the only significant find. Durrington Walls as a place of living is best exemplified by the connotations of using wood as a perishable material. This contrasts with the use of rock over at Stonehenge and it’s connotations of permanence. These ideas have been seen regularly over time, in places like Ancient Egypt and China, with the sixth-century sage Laozi writing about it in Tao Te Ching.15 However, although it’s clear to us that different rituals took place at each, this does suffer from anachronism.

Although mostly living isolated, Neolithics would periodically gather in large numbers to feast and build monuments. Pearson explains “there is little doubt that the place for a good party was Durrington Walls and not Stonehenge”.16 In fact many of the animal bones found there, like the human bones at Stonehenge, originated from many different sites around the British Isles. Advancing Pearson’s theory is the evidence his team found: the identification of Durrington Walls as a neolithic settlement, the discovery of the avenue that links the Southern Circle to the River Avon and the inverse of it’s midwinter sunrise orientation to Stonehenge’s midwinter sunset. Finally, down by the River Avon a previously unknown henge was found, Bluestonehenge; The small stone circle constructed well before 2500BC and dismantled around 2400BC, emphasises and establishes the importance of this stretch of the Avon and the route taken.17 12

Jones, Dan.

13 Pearson, Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery 14 Ibid

15 Tzu, Lao. 1969. Tao Te Ching, trans. by D. C. Lau (London, England: Penguin Classics)

16 Pearson, Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery 17 Ibid

Fig 6. The Stonehenge landscape showing the proposed path between Durrington Walls and Stonehenge, along the river Avon.

Fig 9. An artists depiction of Bluestonehenge during its Neolithic heyday.

Fig 7. An artists depiction of Durrington Walls during its Neolithic heyday.

Fig 8. An artists depiction of Durrington Walls during its Neolithic heyday.

MYTHS OF A FICTIONAL PAST

The first known reference to Stonehenge is in the book Histora Anglorum (1129) by Henry of Huntingdon. Naming it as one of the four wonders of the world, he writes “no one has been able to discover by what mechanism such vast masses of stone were elevated, nor for what purpose they were designed”18 and ever since, a multitude of theories have been advanced.

Following from the fanciful tales told by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC, in 1655 the architect Inigo Jones proposed a new understanding for the henge. Inigo was the first significant architect of England in the early modern period19 and founded the English classical tradition of architecture.20 On the behest of King James I, he was the first person to survey and reconstruct his idea of Stonehenge. Published posthumously his book, The Most Notable Antiquity of Great Britain, Vulgarly Called Stone-Heng, Restored (1655) laid down his hypothesis.21 He believed it couldn’t have been built by the ‘barbarian people’ of Britain, making it the work of the Romans as temple for their god Coleus or Uranus. For him, the open top and sides clearly gave worshippers unrestricted access to the heavens above.22 The theory had no evidence other than his belief that it had to be the work of people who understood the mathematical principles of classical architecture, explaining the lack of symmetry in today’s structure as a result of decay and ruin.23 Conclusively negating the theory, is that fact we now know that Romans first came to Britain in 55BC, making it impossible for them to be architects of monument built in the 3rd millennium BC.24

18 Huntingdon, Henry. 1996. Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon: Historia anglorum: The history of the English people, ed. by Diana E. Greenway (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press)

19 Strickland, Carol. 2018. The Annotated Arch: A Crash Course on the History of Architecture (Echo Point Books & Media)

20 Summerson, John. 2022. “Inigo Jones,” Encyclopedia Britannica

21 “British Library.” [n.d.]. Www.bl.uk <https://www.bl.uk/picturing-places/articles/inigo-jones-and-the-ruins-of-stonehenge> [accessed 18 January 2023]

22 Ibid

23 Inigo Jones and John Webb, The most notable Antiquity of Great Britain vulgarly called STONE-HENG on Salisbury Plain (London, 1655)

24 Bunson, Matthew E. 2002. Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, 2nd edn (New York, NY: Facts On)

Fig 10. Plan by Jones showing his imagined original Stonehenge with a hexagon placed over. Although the reconstruction is accurate to 5% of the classical proportions set out by Vitruvius, he has added a 6th trilithon that never actually existed.

Fig 11. A coloured drawing from Charles Hamilton Smith (1815), dipicting an imaginary festival of Ancient Britons, derived from Stukeley’s intrepretation.

Fig 12. William Stukeley’s drawing of how he imagined a British druid of the Roman period to have looked.

At the turn of the 18th century a new theory began to form, advanced most prominently by the writers John Aubrey and William Stukeley. First came Aubrey with Monumenta Britannica, written between the dates of 1663 and 1693. This was his principal collection of archaeological material and it discussed his idea that Stonehenge may be a Druidic Temple. Known as ‘Britain’s First Archaeologist”25, he was the King’s Antiquarian and a fellow at the Royal Society.26 At the time there wasn’t any concept of a pre-historic timescale, so Aubrey believed it to be pre-Romanic, only suggesting it might be Druidic.27 This cautious approach wasn’t favoured by William Stukeley, after reading Aubrey’s unpublished notes he decided to carry on his work of documenting and analysing Stonehenge.28 It was due to his frequent linking of the two throughout the years and his book Stonehenge: A Temple Restor’d to the British Druids (1740) that when he died in 1765, the idea that Stonehenge and other stone circles were Druid temples had thoroughly became mainstream.29 Despite his infatuation of speculating without evidence, his work can’t be wholly disregarded; He’s credited for the discovery of the Avenue and Cursus at Stonehenge, and was the first to note its solstice sunrise orientation and provide a reliable surveying of monument.30

Support for Stukeley’s theory was well received and the myth still flourishes today, however towards the end of the 19th century, support among the scientific establishment was replaced with contempt.31 Nevertheless, these thoughts were somewhat muddled when the British astronomer, Sir J. Norman Lockyer, published Stonehenge and Other British Monuments Astronomically Considered in 1906.32 In it he argued that pre-historic “astronomer-priests” had been the architects of Stonehenge and they’d planned it as an astronomical calendar. However, the majority of archeologists attacked his conclusions and it would be decades later before it gained more recognition and respect for its merits.33

Before that though a new theory found ground: Alfred Watkins, a self-taught amateur archaeologist, claimed in The Old Straight Track (1925) he’d discovered a grid of pathways around the country that linked megaliths, burial mounds and other significant pre-historic sites.34 Calling them leys, he believed they were built around 4000 to 2000 BC but abandoned and forgotten shortly after. Interestingly, he also found many early Christian churches that had been built on them, presumably to replace previous pagan sites. His thoughts never pierced into the mainstream and gradually evolved fancifully into the territories of “mysterious earth energies” and dowsing rods, reaching a peak in the 1960s. The View over Atlantis (1965), written by the extravagant advocate John Michell, added his own mystical twist to the pathways. Despite these diversions, Watkins’ original thoughts are not implausible and have been noted across various civilisations from western Bolivian taki’is to early Spanish colonial churches supposedly standing on similar grids35

Finally, building on the ideas of Lockyer, Stonehenge Decoded was published by Gerald Hawkins in 1965. Hawkins was a professor at Boston University and by using a computer simulation, reached the conclusion that the site was a ‘Neolithic computer’ for predicting astronomical events.36 The book generated much public discussion, with many more people supporting this hypothesis after the work of the engineer, Alexander Thom, was published in 1975.37

25 Burl, Aubrey. 2010. John Aubrey & Stone Circles: Britain’s First Archaeologist, from Avebury to Stonehenge (Oxford, England: Amberley Publishing)

26 Pearson, Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery

27 Aubrey, John, Thomas Gale, John Evelyn, Rodney Legg, and John Fowles. 1980. Monumenta Britannica (Wellington, England: Dorset Publishing Company)

28 Piggott, Stuart. 1954. “The Druids and Stonehenge,” South African Archaeological Bulletin, 9.36: 138 <https://doi.org/10.2307/3886827>

29 Pearson, Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery

30 Rykwert, Joseph. 1984. The First Moderns: Architects of the Eighteenth Century (London, England: MIT Press)

31 Time-Life Books. 1987. Mystic Places (London, England: Time-Life Books)

32 Lockyer, Norman. 2022. Stonehenge: And Other British Monuments, Astronomically Considered (Classic Reprint) (London, England: Forgotten Books)

33 Mann, A. T. 1993. Sacred Architecture (London, England: Element Books)

34 Watkins, Alfred. 1988. The Old Straight Track: The Classic Book on Ley Lines (London, England: Abacus)

35 Time-Life

36 Hawkins, Gerald S. 1988. Stonehenge Decoded (Buccaneer Books)

37 Heath, Robin. 2007. Alexander Thom: Cracking the Stone Age Code (Cardigan, Wales: Bluestone Press)

Fig 13. Image showing a supposed ley line that runs from Stonehenge through to Salisbury Cathedral.

PART 2

In the 1967 Antiquity article “The God in the Machine”, the archaeologist Dr Jacquetta Hawkes made the famous comment, “Every age gets the Stonehenge it deserves - and desires.”38 This was in reference to a contemporary belief and how she thought it a product of it’s time, just as past theories to theirs.

The writer and antiquarian Horace Walpole back in 1762 recognised this too, stating in Anecdotes of Painting in England “It is remarkable, that whoever has treated of that monument, has bestowed on it whatever class of antiquity he was peculiarly fond of.”39

For the next few chapters we are going to explore this concept in the context of 17th - 20th century British architecture and how the mythology surrounding Stonehenge has influenced and been influenced by the prevailing epoch’s attitude.

A ROMAN TEMPLE (THE 17th CENTURY)

Although few people during the 17th century accepted Inigo Jones’ hypothesis that Stonehenge was a Roman temple, his tenure as the King’s architect meant that it attracted widespread interest throughout the century.40 Born in 1573 London, not much is known about Jones’ early life until he travelled to Italy in 1613, spending the winter in Rome studying antique ruins and works of modern architect masters. In Inigo Jones, Stanley C. Ramsey suggests he was disappointed with the “full tideway of the Baroque” that he currently saw in Italy, being particularly enamoured instead by the work of Andrea Palladio (1508-80).41 Palladio, an Italian architect inspired by the ideals of Vitruvius, led the revival of classical architecture in Italy. This movement promoted the Roman ideals of harmonic proportions, symmetrical planning and focused on aesthetic simplicity and purity.42 After returning, Inigo promptly introduced the English Classical tradition led by his first major commission in 1616; The Queen’s House in Greenwich, the first Palladian building in England.43 This style was a stark contrast to all of the latticework and fretwork of the Gothic period that preceded it and similarly was the anthesis of the contemporary over-the-top Baroque of the continent.44 However, his Palladian style was mostly a lone star during the 17th century, with the majority of buildings still being designed in an exuberant Gothic style. Subsequently replacing it came the English Baroque movement after the English Civil War, with Palladian finally finding itself in the zeitgeist during the first quarter of the 18th century.45

40 “British Library.” [n.d.]. Www.bl.uk <https://www.bl.uk/picturing-places/articles/inigo-jones-and-the-ruins-of-stonehenge> [accessed 18 January 2023]

41 Ramsey, Stanley Churchill. Inigo Jones. United Kingdom, E. Benn, Limited, 1924.

42 Boucher, Bruce. 2007. Andrea Palladio: The Architect in His Time, 2nd edn (New York, NY: Abbeville Press)

43 “Inigo Jones and the Queen’s House.” [n.d.]. Rmg.co.uk <https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/inigo-jones-queens-house> [accessed 18 January 2023]

44 Ramsey

45 Watkin, David. 2000. English Architecture: A Concise History (London, England: Thames & Hudson)

46 Roark, Ryan. “‘Stonehenge in the Mind’ and ‘Stonehenge on the Ground’: Reader, Viewer, and Object in Inigo Jones’s Stone-Heng Restored (1655).” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 77, no. 3, 2018, pp. 285–99. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26502572. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.

47 Manfredo Tafuri, “Operative Criticism,” in Theories and History of Architecture, trans. Giorgio Verrecchia (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 141.

48 Roark

Fig 14. Photograph taken in 1970 of the Queen’s House, Greenwich.

Fig 15. Jones’ depiction of what he thought Stonehenge looked like when the Romans first built it.

Fig 16. Jones’ representation of Stonehenge as it actually appeared.

So, firstly in the context of Jones’ architectural philosophy, when asked by the King to survey Stonehenge in the early 1620’s, it seems quite fitting that he could see it only as work of the Romans in a Vitruvius manner. Secondly, one could hypothesise that just as Jones’ Palladian style wasn’t met with widespread acceptance, neither was his Stonehenge theory. The two arguments against were practically associated, firstly due to the monarchy’s need to reassert authority after the Civil War a heavy and rich Baroque style supplanted Jones, and secondly the prevailing belief before and after his book that Stonehenge was built by an ancient Briton tribe not Romans.46 Whatever the success, it can certainly be seen that Stone-Heng functioned as a tool of “operative criticism” for Jones. Manfredo Tafuri describes the term as “an analysis of architecture [that] has as its objective the planning of a precise poetical tendency … [that] plans past history by projecting it towards the future.”47 Ryan Roark in his 2018 article for the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians voices it quite clearly when he states “Jones’s (sic) primary goal in arguing that Stonehenge was Roman was almost certainly the promotion of classicism in England, where it was still mistrusted as a style that went against native tendencies.”48

Caroline Van Eck in Inigo Jones on Stonehenge: Architectural Representation explains that Jones’ book represents a strange and recurring inclination in histories written by architects; whilst the primary object of study is obviously the building/design, the relationship of the architect to it is often evident as highly individual and subjective, occasionally being the central element.49 Expounding upon this, Jones’ use of Vitruvian geometry is fundamentally flawed as the precedent he uses is for a theatre, not a temple. Knowledge of this can be seen by Jones’ marginal annotations in his copy of Daniele Barbaro’s illustrated edition of Vitruvius’s Ten Books on Architecture (1556), where he states that there’s a relationship between the two spaces.50 Regardless of the merits of this observation, it reveals a deceitful strategy by Jones to omit that the grounding of his theory relies on a theatre space. Building further upon Ecks idea reveals that Jones’ interpretation, as a temple to Coleus Roman god of the sky, can be read as “Christianising [the ruin] in a very Protestant way.”51 Jones reached his conclusion from Pierio Valeriano’s popular handbook Hieroglyphica (1556), where he learned that the Egyptians believed the circle represented Coleus, however this meant he had to omit mention of the dozen other meanings it’s also given. Jones has Christianised it because Coleus was never worshipped but rather a ‘personification of the heavens’, wrongly seen by those who believe in a continuous Christian civilisation as an imperfect version of God.52

45 Watkin, David. 2000. English Architecture: A Concise History (London, England: Thames & Hudson)

46 Roark, Ryan. “‘Stonehenge in the Mind’ and ‘Stonehenge on the Ground’: Reader, Viewer, and Object in Inigo Jones’s Stone-Heng Restored (1655).” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 77, no. 3, 2018, pp. 285–99. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26502572. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.

47 Manfredo Tafuri, “Operative Criticism,” in Theories and History of Architecture, trans. Giorgio Verrecchia (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 141.

48 Roark

49 van Eck, Caroline. 2009. Inigo Jones on Stonehenge: Architectural Representation, Memory and Narrative (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Architectura & Natura Press)

50 Hille, Christiane. 2013. Visions of the Courtly Body: The Patronage of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham, and the Triumph of Painting at the Stuart Court, 1st edn (Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter) <https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050062556>

51 Harris, John, and etc. 1973. King’s Arcadia: Inigo Jones and the Stuart Court; Exhibition Catalogue (London, England: Arts Council of England)

52 van Eck

Fig 17. The five classical orders of architecture as depicted by Isaac Ware in 1756. Jones believed that Stonehenge was made in the Tuscan order.

18. The Vitruvian precedent that Jones uses (on the left) and his plan of Stonehenge with plans for both the monopteros and peripteros over it (on the right). Upon inspection Jones’ geometry is questionable. Although two of the regulating triangles hit outer ‘columns’ at each of their vertices and define the edges of the inner trilithons with each of their edges, the other two seem to do little but echo the Viturvian precedent.

Fig

Fig 19. For Jones, Stonehenge may have represented a prototype for his first Protestant church in Covent Garden, a simple and unadorned house of God.

Jones’s revolutionary Palladian ideas in English architecture with it’s perceived mythical link to Stonehenge and Roman influence can only be seen in four of his buildings which survive today: the Queens House (1616–19); the Queen’s Chapel (1623–27); St Paul’s Church (1633); and his greatest achievement, the Banqueting House (1619–22) at Whitehall.53 The Banqueting House exemplifies his Vitruvian modus operandi where it was conceived as a basilica without aisles, using equally spaced out superimposed columns set against the walls to support the flat, beamed ceiling. The exterior reflects the arrangement of the interior, with pilasters and regular columns set against the rusticated walling.54 Due to widespread rejection of Jones’ Palladianism, his influence wasn’t widely felt during this period. It did, however, influence the work of another famous contemporary, Sir Christopher Wren and his magnum opus St. Paul’s, the only English cathedral in any permutation of the Classical tradition. 55

Wren was born in East Knoyle, Wiltshire in 1632, roughly 15 miles away from Stonehenge.56 It’s believed he spent time on the site in his youth as there are two etchings on different stones of ‘WREN’ with a cross before it, thought to represent his first name.57 It’s interesting to speculate whether the proximity of Stonehenge growing up and Jones’ assertion of it being Roman, made him amenable to the ideas of Classical architecture so much earlier than anyone else. Due to perceived lack of serious endeavour combining Royal Society thought with architectural theory since Jones death 10 years prior, in 1662 his path down architecture began58; Four years later, the Great Fire of London provided a great opportunity for him to strike while the iron was hot. With 2/3rds of the city reduced to a smoking dustbowl, 87 churches including St. Paul’s, was destroyed.59 This provided an ample canvas for Wren to pursue his Classical teachings and once he became the King’s Surveyor of Works he began re-building. His designs embodied a ‘distinctively English approach’ to church-building in the Classical manner and mostly rejected the domes that were so popular in Europe’s Baroque movement. Furthermore, he employed a broad range of various forms of steeple that were used as a Classical substitute to the former Gothic spire.60 St Paul’s was built in a restrained Baroque style that reflected Wren’s rationalisation of England’s traditional Gothic cathedrals with the inspiration of Jones’ Palladianism and his previous design for it.61

Only part of a model and a single drawing remains of Wren’s first design, however it appears that he planned for it to have a domed vestibule and a basilica creating a rectangular church. Furthermore, a unique feature at this time would have been the inclusion of the Roman loggia around the base of the building.62 This motif was especially popular in Rome and Bologna during the designs development and was particularly favoured by Palladio. In fact, about 30 years prior in 1635, Inigo Jones had used one for the first Palladian building in England, the Queen’s House. It’s very possible that Wren felt inspired by this to design something that was so reminiscent to the Pantheon in Rome. However, The Church of England committee rejected it as it wasn’t “stately enough”, resembling the antithesis of the cathedrals previous design.63

53 Summerson, “Inigo Jones”

54 Ibid

55 Loftie, W. J. 2019. Inigo Jones and Wren: Or the Rise and Decline of Modern Architecture in England (Classic Reprint) (London, England: Forgotten Books)

56 Summerson, John. 2022a. “Christopher Wren,” Encyclopedia Britannica

57 “The Stones of Stonehenge.” [n.d.]. English Heritage <https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/things-to-do/stone-circle/stones-ofstonehenge/> [accessed 18 January 2023]

58 Summerson, “Christopher Wren”

59 Tinniswood, Adrian. 2016. The Great Fire of London: The Essential Guide (London, England: Vintage Classics)

60 Jardine, Lisa. 2002. On a Grander Scale: The Outstanding Career of Sir Christopher Wren (London, England: HarperCollins)

61 Loftie

62 Jardine

63 Campbell, James W. P. 2020. Building St Paul’s (London, England: Thames & Hudson)

Fig 20. On the left: The church as it stood before the Great Fire of London. On the right: Jones’ design for the reconstruction.

Fig 21. What survives of the model for his first design, showcasing the loggia.

Fig 22. The floor plan for Wren’s second design with a Greek cross floor plan, a simple associated with the early days of Christianity. The Church of England uses the Latin cross, so it didn’t fufil the requirements of an Anglican liturgy.

Fig 23. A watercolour illustration depicting what Wren’s “Great Model” design would have looked like. It was his favourite, thinking of it as a “reflection of Renaissance beauty.” However, the committee disagreed and denounced it again as being too different to other English churches to suggest any correlation to the Church of England.

Wren’s fourth design finally received the Royal warrant to commence construction, after capitulating to reconcile the perennial Gothic with a “better manner of architecture.”64 Things like the external buttresses and spire are clearly not classical elements and were changed when it was finally built, taking great advantage of permission by the King to make “ornamental changes”.65 He made the walls thick enough to avoid the need for external buttresses and also swapped out the spire for a double-shelled dome, similar to St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Compared to his previous designs, the floor plan drastically changed for this iteration as well, yielding instead to the traditional medieval cathedral style; the Anglican Latin cross.66 However some notable initial classical features remained, such as the porticos on the west and transept ends. The portico was tweaked a bit, creating instead a two storied entrance in the final design, a choice that was influenced by Jones’ designs for the Old St. Pauls.67

St Paul’s was built on Ludgate Hill; a site that ancient legend says was the location of an ancient stone circle, before a Roman temple dedicated to the goddess Diana was built around 604 AD. Today, reviewing all known evidence of the site, it’s believed that a temple didn’t exist and finds of Roman origin around the area only suggest Roman occupation.68 However, this wasn’t known in 1750 when Wren published his memoir, Parentalia, writing that underneath the cathedral he found old foundations of “Kentish rubble stone, artfully work’d and consolidated...in the Roman manner.”69 It’s also worth noting the discoveries of his peers that will have influenced his opinion: John Conyers in 1677 found Roman pottery kilns around St. Pauls; and John Woodward, sometime in the 17th century, found a statuette of Diana.70 These factors likely led Wren to give some thought to the notion and it’s revealing that his designs would try emulating the Classical architecture that may have stood before the Gothic reincarnations. In addition, the dome of St Paul’s is constructed to the same diameter as the outer ring of sarsens at Stonehenge, perhaps a reference to the stone circle and/or an acknowledgment of Jones’ Roman theory. It’s also interesting that he chose to rotate the plan so it aligned with Easter sunrise of the year construction began, a choice informed by Wren’s interest in astronomy71 and perhaps its context once again.

64 Downes, Kerry, and Guildhall Library. 1988. Sir Christopher Wren: Design for St.Paul’s Cathedral (London, England: Trefoil Publications)

65 Barker, Felix, and Ralph Hyde. 1982. London as It Might Have Been (London, England: John Murray)

66 Downes

67 Ibid

68 Schofield, John. 2011. St Paul’s Cathedral before Wren (Swindon, England: Historic England)

69 Wren, Christopher. Parentalia Or Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens Viz. of Mathew Bishop of Ely, Christopher Dean of Windsor ... But Chiefly of --- Surveyor-general of the Royal Buildings ... Now Published by Stephen Wren. United Kingdom, Osborn, 1750.

70 Schofield

71 Lang, Jane (1956), Rebuilding St Paul’s after the Great Fire of London, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Fig 24. On the left: West elevation of Wren’s fourth design. On the upper right: South elevation of Wren’s fourth design. On the lower right: Floor plan of Wren’s fourth design.

Fig 25. Painting of the north west view of St. Paul’s, showing the main entrance portico obscured by the foregroundof Ludgate Hill.